If you have watched The Mummy then you know what the Hom-Dai is.
For those who don't it's a curse so horrifying that the Egytpians feared it. The victim had their tongue cut out, were mummified alive and then covered covered in Scarabs which ate them to death very slowly, should the Book of the Dead be read then the cursed would arise and become invincible and would unleash the 10 Plagues of Egypt and take over the world.

If you have watched The Mummy then you know what the Hom-Dai is.
For those who don't it's a curse so horrifying that the Egytpians feared it. The victim had their tongue cut out, were mummified alive and then covered covered in Scarabs which ate them to death very slowly, should the Book of the Dead be read then the cursed would arise and become invincible and would unleash the 10 Plagues of Egypt and take over the world.

Is the Hom-Dai based on fact or is it pure fiction?

I have seen that one, and first I think that the role of the scarabs is highly exaggerated, I mean from a more or less peaceful dung beetle to a meat eating monster is a bit too much for my taste, then there were these special locks they used to lock his coffin, too much fringe in that. So I say Hollywood needed something scary, and this was it, but as most Hollywood stuff: fake Perhaps there is a similar curse, and silenced in a coffin (by having your tongue cut) wrapped as a mummy ('screaming man' comes to mind left to die slowly seems horrible enough to me!

For as far as I know the Egyptians were never punished by being buried alive. Even the case against those who tried to assassinate Ramesses III only includes execution and in cases a chance to kill ones self.

They might condemn the person to oblivion by erasing their names. That kind of damnatio memoriae has been documented in several instances.

Actually, there is nothing in both movies that is based on exact facts.

Except the person named Imhotep did exist!

Thrue and also Sethi I who appears in the 2nd movie

Who was not assassinated: his mummy shows he died a natural death.

I really disliked the modern Mummy movies for the blatant misinformation it conveys (pyramids in Thebes, 5 canopic jars (as opposed to the traditional 4), flesh-eating scarabs, mixing Egyptian art styles over several millennia which are unrelated (Amarna and Ptolemaic styles are show side by side), Nefertiri as Seti I's daughter (also untrue), "Book of the Living" vs "Book of the Dead", etc.).

Considering they had an Egyptologist as a consultant (though, to be fair to him, only for the ancient language used), one would think they could have done MUCH better.

OTOH, watching the 1932 The Mummy movie seems like a documentary when compared to the 1999 and 2001 versions: it's far more factual (so you know now how bad the modern Mummy movies really are!)._________________Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

What strikes me is that all that misinformation has been there, seemingly unnoticed; cold it be a deliberate misinformation? A kind of persiflage on the mummy-movie type? The general public either didn't notice or thought of it as amusing until.. it was analyzed here (I guess) and found all the oddities. I can't think of Dr Smith not reading the script and not seeing those odd references to AE-history, but then he also was involved in the movie Stargate, so perhaps he did notice and thought "what the hell, no one but an Egyptologist will notice the difference and how many of those will watch this movie?"

What strikes me is that all that misinformation has been there, seemingly unnoticed; cold it be a deliberate misinformation? A kind of persiflage on the mummy-movie type? The general public either didn't notice or thought of it as amusing until.. it was analyzed here (I guess) and found all the oddities. I can't think of Dr Smith not reading the script and not seeing those odd references to AE-history, but then he also was involved in the movie Stargate, so perhaps he did notice and thought "what the hell, no one but an Egyptologist will notice the difference and how many of those will watch this movie?"

The main problem one had with the overwhelming popularity of the Mummy movies is just how many people thought the darned thing was historically accurate. Seriously.

I can't tell you how many times I have been asked where "Hamunaptra" was (folks: it's a joke: it's based upon the "egyptifying" of the term Hymenoptera, which is the species name of bees (bee being one of the emblems of the king in ancient Egypt; it's pronounced the same: "hahy-muh-nop-ter-uh")), where can people read about the "evil priest" Imhotep (there is no texts as the character does not exist (except in the Karloff 1932 film)), is it true that people were buried alive (no), and my personal favourite, why have we Egyptologists never published the "Book of the Living" as talked about in the movie (because there is none?).

I found people retained more misinformation from the Mummy movies than from good factual information that could be easily found elsewhere - from books, even the Internet. If fact, most people told me what I corrected couldn't be true because, obviously, the movie had to be accurate. I mean, after all, didn't they have an Egyptologist working on the Mummy films? (That info got out, but few understood that Stuart Tyson Smith was just there for the "ancient Egyptian" language used in the movie).

In truth, the 1999 and 2001 Mummy movies are based upon old 1930's end-of-movie serials as a genre and really, do you expect them to be "accurate"?

What strikes me is that all that misinformation has been there, seemingly unnoticed; cold it be a deliberate misinformation? A kind of persiflage on the mummy-movie type? The general public either didn't notice or thought of it as amusing until.. it was analyzed here (I guess) and found all the oddities. I can't think of Dr Smith not reading the script and not seeing those odd references to AE-history, but then he also was involved in the movie Stargate, so perhaps he did notice and thought "what the hell, no one but an Egyptologist will notice the difference and how many of those will watch this movie?"

The main problem one had with the overwhelming popularity of the Mummy movies is just how many people thought the darned thing was historically accurate. Seriously.

I can't tell you how many times I have been asked where "Hamunaptra" was (folks: it's a joke: it's based upon the "egyptifying" of the term Hymenoptera, which is the species name of bees (bee being one of the emblems of the king in ancient Egypt; it's pronounced the same: "hahy-muh-nop-ter-uh")), where can people read about the "evil priest" Imhotep (there is no texts as the character does not exist (except in the Karloff 1932 film)), is it true that people were buried alive (no), and my personal favourite, why have we Egyptologists never published the "Book of the Living" as talked about in the movie (because there is none?).

I found people retained more misinformation from the Mummy movies than from good factual information that could be easily found elsewhere - from books, even the Internet. If fact, most people told me what I corrected couldn't be true because, obviously, the movie had to be accurate. I mean, after all, didn't they have an Egyptologist working on the Mummy films? (That info got out, but few understood that Stuart Tyson Smith was just there for the "ancient Egyptian" language used in the movie).

In truth, the 1999 and 2001 Mummy movies are based upon old 1930's end-of-movie serials as a genre and really, do you expect them to be "accurate"?

I don't think so.

Again, I am pleased to read about this here (no fantasy, no fringe, just an occasional laughter about a silly story) But wouldn't it at the time to write something that would counter the Mummy stories? I know of the book Mummies, Myths and Magic; but IMO this book is failing to do what I would want it to do, being exposure of the false information fed to us by these movies, again IMO as soon as you put the "Magic" part in it people expect to read about the "evil priest Imhotep" and wants to learn about "the magic" performed on him (which is "no magic" at all!) Perhaps we should write such a book

The mummy films show ďthe power of movieĒ and Iím not surprised that (some) people take it for granted and being true. As long as Iím in to the study of A.E. (and Iím not an Egyptologist) people have asked me the most strange questions about Egypt, and it is quite difficult to convince (some of) them, that not all what they see in movie theaters or on television is based on the truth. To be honest, it was a relief when I found this forum, were we can talk about A.E. from a scientific, archaeological and historical view.

Still I do like the mummy films and some of the propsÖ.I really would like to have in my collection_________________

I will be honest that when I was ten, I thought the Mummy movies were amazingly true. I thought this because, at a very early age, I began to study the language. Hearing it used in the Movie just sparked the flame in my juvenile mine-frame that the movie was true. Though, even after studying, and finding out that much of the movie is false, this did not make me stop loving the movie for what it is (A Movie.) I find it sad when people (mainly adults) believe that movies are ALL based off of facts, aspect per aspect. Movies are made the way they are to entertain us, and that is really the bottom line.

Though, I understand where the whole 'Curse' idea rose from, as well as the belief that mummies could come back to life. In the Book of the Dead, there are countless passages which run along the lines of "...And with the breath of Isis, the honored Osiris-N will rise and live again; forever and more..." These ideas simply arose from people jumping to a conclusion without truly understanding the context of the spell/passage. And as far as the 'curse' aspect, this idea can arise from the numerous warning that would have been inscription into the doorway of tombs or coffins; like "... Death shall come on swift wings to he who disturbs this tomb..." All of it misinterpreted and than stretched past fantasy by the imagination-filled mines of film writers.

Again, all in all, the movie is nothing more than a movie. An entertaining story which should not be taken as truthful or factual. MHO

Iím not sure whether the A.E. language spoken in the movie is correct, I understand they used the expertise of Egyptologists for it. Since you are very interested in the A.E. language, check out following link:

This man made about four videoís, with tales from the Old Kingdom. Not only itís interesting to listen to his pronunciation, he also gives the text in hieroglyphics, the transcription and the English translation._________________

Iím not sure whether the A.E. language spoken in the movie is correct, I understand they used the expertise of Egyptologists for it. Since you are very interested in the A.E. language, check out following link:

This man made about four videoís, with tales from the Old Kingdom. Not only itís interesting to listen to his pronunciation, he also gives the text in hieroglyphics, the transcription and the English translation.

Stuart Tyson Smith, the Egyptologist who created the "Egyptian language" for Stargate and the Mummy movies, is a fine fellow and a good Egyptologist. However, anyone who tells you that they have "cracked" ancient Egyptian and we know for a fact how the language sounded is pulling your leg.

What the movie producers wanted from Smith was an approximation of ancient Egyptian for dramatic effect. So, Smith gave to them the type of "language" we Egyptologists use alongst ourselves to describe the sounds we think were present in ancient Egyptian, based upon analyses against other languages (ancient and modern, like Coptic), using the IPA language sound systems.

But to be clear, no one knows for a fact how ancient Egyptian sounded. Even the YouTube URL you give is from a nice Italian fellow who is a member of the Ancient Egyptian Language list, and who is merely practicing the language according to IPA standards: he is not saying it is ancient Egyptian, BTW. He put it up on YouTube primarily to give an idea of how he thought the story of Pronce Chephren in PWestcard was possibly delivered (hence the dramatic pauses). As he notes on YouTube, it is his "experiment in vocalization of Ancient Egyptian Language."

So, I would look at this (and Smith's work) as scholarly approximations of what we think ancient Egyptian might have sounded like, but heaven knows, none of us, least of all Egyptologists, would ever say this is definitively the way it did sound.

There is only one book on the linguistics of ancient Egyptian, and this is in comparison to other Afro-Asiastic languages, and merely attempts a possible reconstruction. This work is

But to be clear, no one knows for a fact how ancient Egyptian sounded. Even the YouTube URL you give is from a nice Italian fellow who is a member of the Ancient Egyptian Language list, and who is merely practicing the language according to IPA standards: he is not saying it is ancient Egyptian, BTW. He put it up on YouTube primarily to give an idea of how he thought the story of Pronce Chephren in PWestcard was possibly delivered (hence the dramatic pauses). As he notes on YouTube, it is his "experiment in vocalization of Ancient Egyptian Language."

I agree completely Neseret, I should have put that in my post. But since he gives a good explanation at the beginning of his tale, I didnít._________________